User:Xenophrenic

Possibly true. If you have engaged in seriously disruptive editing practices (vandalism, libel, etc.) recently, I may have taken notice and made a mental note to follow-up on some of your edits. This is common practice, and is even recommended by Wikipedia Policy in many circumstances. Please don't take it personally, as I have nothing against you; it's the disruptive editing that irks me. If you feel that my extra attention to your edits is unwarranted, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you.

It is also possible that we, coincidently, are crossing paths because we share an interest in some of the same subjects. If so, introduce yourself! Maybe we can both benefit through a sharing of information and ideas.

You are right! As a general rule, I try to avoid making any assumptions, good or bad. WP:Assume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline, not a policy, which "editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I am one of those exceptions. I will still interact with proper civility and respect, as required, but be advised that I have left all assumptions about your intentions at the door where they belong. As taught to me by wikipedians of elevated standing yet poor judgement when I first started editing here, [1][2][3], assuming bad faith even to the point of taking comically bad actions is the norm for some. Common sense dictates that I base my 'faith' on available evidence only, and assume nothing.

You are mistaken. Please go back to the article in question and review the discussion page. You will find there a perfectly reasonable explanation of my edits. If you disagree with me for any reason, simply explain why on that same discussion page. If we both have the well-being of this Wikipedia project at heart, then we should be able to put any conflict easily to rest.

If our disagreement concerns your edits to a biography of a living person, you should be aware that I will not compromise on issues involving libel or sources. I have been accused of edit warring only a couple times, and I'm happy to say my accusers are either banned from Wikipedia or clammed up in embarrassed silenceafter their accusations were shown to be wrong.

Wrong. I never have and (barring some technical glich or lag) I never will.

If I have done so, it has been limited, transparent and in a neutral manner. You are allowed to do the same. More eyes on a discussion, and hence more voices contributing, will likely bring good results for all concerned.

You are mistaken, but you wouldn't be the first. Ironically, every single editor to accuse me of using sockpuppets is indefinitely banned for using sockpuppets. Should I be launching a Sockpuppet Investigation on you?

No, I am not. You have very likely misunderstood what I was trying to say. I will admit to coming off a bit snarky at times, and I have been known to misjudge the level of informality I can apply to a particular discussion -- but please understand that I meant no disrespect; I intended no ill-will. If you feel seriously slighted, drop a note on my talk page and I'll see if I can muster up a sincere apology.

You may need to explain in more detail here. My edits convey the views expressed in reliable sources, so your complaint is likely with the source of the information and not with this editor.

As long as Wikipedia has a 'Watch Article' function, it may certainly appear this way. There are some tests you can run to determine if I own a particular article. (1) Try improving the article. If nothing happens, then you have found an article I definitely do not own. Conversely, (2) Try vandalizing the article. If I promptly revert your edits, then you have found an article I definitely do own.

Possibly true. I come from an era where ideas were expressed in books consisting of hundreds of pages; magazine and journal articles were many pages long; personal correspondence had actual paragraphs full of words. If you ask me to convey my thought in the format of an instant message or "tweet" popular today, I'll certainly make the attempt if that would be more comfortable for you. If you want understanding, however, it is very likely that you may simply need to force yourself to read through multiple sentences at a time as your predecessors have done for centuries.

You may need to explain in more detail here.